[bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
- From: "Julie Morales" <inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 22:09:58 -0700
Hi, Charlene. This is a good idea in theory, but I'd be interested to know
how they'd work it out. No matter how they do it, there are going to be
people who don't believe they get enough credit for what they do. I think
the least they could do is, if a validator takes a poorly-scanned book off
the Downloads page and makes it into a good-quality book, they definitely
should get more than 50 cents. I don't think many, if any, people would
argue that, but I think it would be hard to decide: Did a submitter really
spend a lot of time cleaning up a book before they submitted it, or did it
just scan well? Take care.
Julie Morales
inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows/MSN Messenger (but not email):
mercy0421@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: mercy0421
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
For whatever it's worth, when I was at the NFB convention last summer
and saw Jim Frukterman (big appologies for misspelling the last name!!!)
I asked him if it would be possible to consider increasing the amount of
credit given to people who make the effort to clean up their books
before sobmitting them. I've spent heaven knows how many hours cleaning
up books, and if anyone's scanned cookbooks, you know the time involved!
(smile!) It's all about what a person's motivation is. Jim said this
was at least something to thik about. And I haven't seen or heard
anything regarding different levels of credit since.
Charlene
-----Original Message-----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cindy
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:09 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Download Stats
But then, Mike, perhaps they (i,e, those people who
scan for themselves and don't fix them before
submission) shouldn't submit them. They get $2.50
credit toward their membership, and the work, or lack
of it they do, isn't worth it --whereas if anyone
bothers to validate those books and fix them, that
person only gets 50 cents credit and does much more
work. I don't know whether, if a person's submission
is rejected, that person still gets the credit for the submission or
not. In some cases, the book may not be rejected for quite some time, so
I suspect it would be hard to take away the credit.
It seems to me that if a person is scanning books
for his/her own pleasure reading and doesn't care
about making it at least minimally readable for other
people he/she shouldn't submit the book.
Cindy
> (2) Many people scan books for themselves for their
> own reading as a
> primary intent. Submitting it to BookShare is a
> secondary intent.
> Hence, the person doesn't wish to devote
> extra time or effort in preparing the book
> and BookShare receives it "as is."
...
>
> Both are valid approaches to scanning and
> sub hence, we
> shouldn't fault submitters for material submitted
> prepared for their own
> use that they wish to share (hence the name
> BookShare).
>...
> And with literally hundreds of romance novels
> published monthly, and if
> someone wanted to read many of them for themselves,
> I can understand
> why they'd take the fast unchecked approach to
> scanning them for
> themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Other related posts:
